Rebels, Insurrectionists and Revolutionaries

It has become fashionable on the right to either accept the label of rebels, or some derivation of the word and concept. While the concept may accurately describe those in the libertarian or anarchist camp, the right is not and will never be such a thing. Rebellion is a position in contra to the establisher order, and much like evil, requires a point of reference to set itself against. The subtle, but important concession made to the left is that they are the authority and we are in conflict with them.

The statement that the left is not the authority will doubtless raise some eyebrows, but the left has never had the capacity to become a force of order or authority. From the perspective of a US ‘History’ book it certainly may look like the Soviets or others made such a thing possible. However, the centralized planning, equality and order promised to the people never materialized. Rather, instead of a patrician class tied to the land and the local populace in fiduciary and patriarchal duty, Russia and most of the West traded it for an urbanized class of intelligentsia selected for their graft and link to a belief system. Their birthright for a bowl of porridge. The political class a nation has is the one it incentivizes. Democracy’s sole claim to fame is the ability of its political process to select quite possibly the worst and most dishonest human beings in a given populace for governance. Taking a long view of history, one is forced to conclude that Robespierre was the rule rather than the bloody exception. Egalitarianism and liberalism only exist when there is an existing structure to fight against. They pull the pin on the grenade and run into the room promising equality of outcome. However many months, years, or decades the fuse burns is the length of their pale imitation of actual government. It is the suicide bomber of political ideologies.

As the Soviets and other starry-eyed rebels found out, the options are three-fold once this political cancer finally kills the host and becomes responsible for governance. Like Cuba or virtually every sub-Saharan African country at one time or another, an outside source of funding must be obtained to fill those boring, bourgeois needs like food, medicine and utilities. The other option, PDVSA comes to mind here, is to strip-mine your country to provide the cash flow required to keep the peasants in line and party members in caviar. The last option is to simply re-brand and adjust in a new direction. The US in all its democratic glory lost the republic at best within two generations, the more astute would point out that it was lost when Marbury was decided. However, Lincoln altered course when the tree planted in 1787 bore fruit and the US continued on in a mutated form until Wilson’s Federal Reserve ushered in yet another national crisis. On it goes, every generation or two, the cycle of instability and soft revolution until we arrive at today, maybe three or four decades into our current metamorphosis. The left may obtain power, but it is not governance. Look at the last two hundred years of conflict and where democracy and liberalism have taken root, and tell me it hasn’t lived up to every imprecation of Plato.

While I understand the cultural meaning and distinctly American fascination with the term, the typecast of Tyler Durden, Han Solo or John Bender, their usefulness only lies in being an outlier of the ‘uncool.’ A nation of them cannot keep the lights on or hundred people involved in getting food from farm to table. The same goes for the current crop of rebels and revolutionaries in blue hair or pink hats. All rely on the ‘patriarchy’ or ‘white privilege’ or (insert code phrase du jour) to exist. Their sustenance, transportation, shelter and distractions are all provided for by the people they distain and the structures they would destroy. The crippling insecurity, laziness or in broad strokes, mental state renders most leftist revolutionaries incapable of being productive members of society and creating rather than destroying.

It’s that reason I object to be typecast as a rebel. The right, note this is not conservatism, builds and creates civilization. It cultivates the better angels of man’s nature, but does not grant him a place of deity. The right embraces reality and seeks to work within it. Liberalism actively seeks to change, usurp or ignore reality. While in this transitory moment of history they have the trappings of authority, we should take a longer view. Rather than accept that liberalism, our democracy included, has any claim to legitimate authority other than the barrel of a gun, we should seek to combat this notion. Those in acknowledgment of a Higher Power, and thus higher law, must do so, their worldview demands such a thing. Egalitarianism and humanism (colloquially called individualism now…once called Luciferianism) are at odds with reality, not us. We should never miss an opportunity to throw the fruits of this delusion and rebellion in their face. We are agents of order, a defense of sanity, and the very things that built a civilization unrivaled in recorded history. Our Rome may have fallen, future generations will have to make that determination, but like the Church it is not a physical manifestation. Western culture is a set of ideals and while a social cancer has ravaged the tangible in our nation, we can each maintain our post. Our way of life lives or dies in the hearts of our spouses, our children, ourselves, not in marble buildings. We are not rebels.

About The Author

The Millennial your professor warned you about. Incontrovertibly opposed to neoliberalism and post-modernism, including their roots, on a theological, philosophical, economic and political basis. My curriculum vitae spans chemistry, biology, law, and western jurisprudence. Juris Doctorate. Recovering libertarian and ivory tower resident. Reluctant monarchist because I read too much history, and watched CSPAN one too many times. Christian in the vein of Augustine and the Five Solas, advocate for patriarchy, western and Christian tradition, and the nuclear family. Avid hunter, fisherman and outdoorsman. Described as a 'food snob.' Lover of old bourbon and old books. Happily married to my favorite redhead...my helpmeet and the one that makes it all worth it. I live in Virginia but will always be a Texan.

5 Comments

Rebels, perhaps not, but reality and fate have a distinct way of changing avocation. Farm and city boys of talent found themselves fighting incredible odds against German and Japanese professional and seasoned soldiers. After the passage of time and a lot of blood, they were equals. Ann Coulter once said something along the lines of, 3 or 4 million of the most anti-American Japanese had to die in order to bring them to heel, and few people of responsible age at the time objected. In turmoil, you get revolutionaries AND counter-revolutionaries, often loyalists, royalists and just plain, hired by the best wages freebooters. The thing usually gets won by the side willing to go all the way when it comes to ferocity. The winners write the history of it, and they usually like to self-identify as rebels. Keeps them young, for a while.

Those who would rule almost never have any idea what it takes to keep their backsides in cushions or food or electricity and even if they do have no idea how to do it on their own, So all revolutions of the left involve the use of force to make it happen. The latest incarnation of this is happening in China with its “social score” to keep the masses in line. Homeland (in) Security is now creating a database of “influencers” I suppose to treat us like we did the Japanese of the US in WWII. We are maybe called the right but in truth we are the builders, creators of general wealth and the idea of individuality within an affinity group who make things happen. So reluctantly we gather together to fight those who through ignorance along with blind motivation would destroy all what is here.

What’s the remedy? And how do we get there from here? The “democratic process” has been hijacked and subverted to ensure the continuation of the status quo. Michael Flynn is a felon and Hillary Clinton is free. Crat politicians and government officials flaunt immigration law with the wildest degree, but if I established an NFA or IRS free zone whereupon full autos are good and taxes are out, Flynn’s status would be quickly visited upon me, should I survive the experience. Fake collusion inquisitions are used as a rear guard for obama and Clinton treason, while actual efforts are made by the same to assist foreign invaders having a vote on my inalienable rights.

Mr. James, I’m reading Antifragile. It’s instructive to further inform our ideas of what works. You might enjoy it. One of the points of the book is that the nation-state is fragile or weak because it is a large single point of failure and thus all countries (The author uses Nations because he like many also conflates the two) fail over time. He suggests, I think rightly, that self-aligning collections of city-states has proven to be the most resilient model in history.

He doesn’t touch the point, or hasn’t yet, that one reason the nation-state is fragile is because when two or more nations are living in the same country that country is, by way of anthropological fact, no longer just one thing. There is a reason that the left supports multiple language use and rejects integration. People who can’t communicate can’t have a shared future with common national aspirations. Being a believer I know that nations are a real thing for He said so. If you want a nation you must be one people and a line on a map doesn’t enforce that, obviously.

I suppose the founders attempted robustness by way of a degree of State autonomy from DC but again, even within many of the several states multiple nations exist today. In a city-state model I think that like peoples would gravitate toward each other. And the strongest societal model would win. This would also solve some birth rate issues some peoples are facing. Of course our problem with the city-state model is what about the nukes?

The book is not about nations it’s about being antifragile and he touches on many topics from economies to markets to science to social organization(s), family, running a biz, and many more. I strongly think it would inform your scholarly pursuits. If you haven’t read it already, do so.